Garlock v. Dunkle
New York Supreme Court
Motion to change venue. The venue was laid in Jefferson county. The declaration was served on the seventh day of May. On rthe twenty-seventh day of M ay the defendant pleaded and gave notice of motion to change the venue to Montgomery, accompanied with an order to stay proceedings. The circuit in Jefferson was appointed to be held on the fifteenth day of June.
Read the full summary
Motion to change venue. The venue was laid in Jefferson county. The declaration was served on the seventh day of May. On rthe twenty-seventh day of M ay the defendant pleaded and gave notice of motion to change the venue to Montgomery, accompanied with an order to stay proceedings. The circuit in Jefferson was appointed to be held on the fifteenth day of June. A circuit court was held in Montgomery commencing on the eleventh day of May which was ended, and the next circuit in that county would not be held until the autumn of 1840. The defendant swore that he did not know it was necessary for…
1Opinion of the Court
By thé Court,
Cowen, J.
Several cases are cited which say that the venue shall not be changed when the effect will be to work the loss of a circuit of a term. But none of them can be understood as applying to a case where no greater delay is occasioned than what must have arisen had notice been given the first opportunity. The meaning is not that the mere loss of a trial or term shall be a ground for denying the motion. The delay of both is often a necessary consequence of a change. The objection applies only when the loss arises from the defendant’s neglect: as if a special term be suffered to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. PriorNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Becker v. Town of Cherry CreekNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Brittan v. PeabodyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1842